A. P. MISRA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, exchange of the affidavits and as the learned counsel for the parties agree, this petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission in accordance with the Rules of the court. The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated June 27, 1990, passed by respondent No. 1, annexure VI to the petition, and further it seeks direction restraining the respondent No. 1 raising any dispute with regard to the claim of exemption from tax on the sale against form III-B made to the manufacturer of tin containers. According to the petitioner, it has mainly sold tin-plates to the manufacturer of tin containers. The manufacturers of the tin containers, on their purchases, normally issued form III-B as contemplated under section 4b of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and claimed full exemption of tax. The container is one of the notified goods of annexure III of the Notification No. ST-II-2958/x-9 (1)-76 dated May 20, 1976, issued under section 4b of the Act. Under that only those manufacturers are entitled to the benefit of exemption who are the holders of the recognition certificate under section 4b of the Act. Under that notification the exemption is of two types, one full concession and the other is partial concession. The full exemption from tax is available to the new unit manufacturing notified goods mentioned in annexure I and to other units manufacturing notified goods mentioned in annexure III. The petitioner effected sale of tin-sheets to the extent of Rs. 4,44,93,625 to the manufacturers of tin containers in the assessment year 1982-83. The manufacturer of the tin containers issued form III-B which has been submitted to the Sales Tax Officer. The Sales Tax Officer granted exemption by means of assessment order dated November 30, 1987, pertaining to tin-plates. The case of the petitioner is that while granting the sale exemption the Sales Tax Officer has recorded a categorical finding that the entire sales have been made to the manufacturers of the tin containers for which form III-B has been issued. According to the petitioner, even as per assessment order it was entitled for the refund of the tax deposited since it has made an application for refund under section 22 and for rectification of the said order of assessment as there was some mistake. It seems that during the said proceedings the Assistant Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, instead of approving the order passed under section 22 allowing the refund directed the Sales Tax Officer concerned to examine the claim of exemption against form III-B afresh. In pursuance of the same the notice dated March 7, 1990, annexure IV to the petition, has been issued to the petitioner. The said notice refers to wrong grant of total exemption of the aforesaid goods as the petitioner was entitled for a partial exemption and thereafter the petitioner filed reply. According to the petitioner the reply was actually accepted by the Sales Tax Officer once again and again prepared a draft order and sent for approval to the Assistant Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad. The said order according to the petitioner did not suit to the respondent No. 2. He had again directed the Sales Tax Officer to make further enquiry in the matter. In pursuance of the same the present impugned notice dated June 27, 1990, has been issued by the concerned respondent-authority. The case of the petitioner is that in the proceedings under section 22 initiated by the petitioner for refund of the excess amount deposited there cannot be any enquiry or decision by the concerned respondent-authority where exemption was granted by means of assessment order passed earlier for the assessment year 1982-83 wrongly or rightly. The only question is in regard to enquiry and the said enquiry could be confined to the claim of the petitioner whether he was entitled for refund or not. The petitioner is entitled for refund if the amount deposited by the petitioner is admittedly for excess of the amount assessed for the relevant year in question, hence the impugned notice is bad and liable to be quashed. On behalf of the respondents the learned Standing Counsel relying on various paragraphs of the counter-affidavit has urged on merits that the assessing authority relied mainly on the affidavit and control orders submitted by the petitioner. It is also stated by the learned Standing Counsel that the copies of the recognition certificate of all concerned manufacturers were not submitted as mentioned in the opening part of para 2 of page 3 of the said order. Since in those proceedings some glaring defects were detected, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, rightly directed respondent No. 1 to make detailed enquiry inasmuch as the recognition certificate of 11 dealers covering sales to the extent of Rs. 2,06,14,658. 16 clearly indicated that the latter were entitled to purchase tin-sheets at concessional rates of four per cent and not without payment of the tax as claimed by the petitioner. For this the petitioner is being given opportunity by means of the aforesaid show cause notice. They have relied on the copies of the recognition certificate filed by the petitioner that they were entitled to purchase material sold only on concessional rates as the petitioner himself admitted a tax liability of Rs. 61,700. However, in this case it is not necessary for us to give any finding in respect of the respective claim made by the petitioner or the concerned respondent. The only question necessary for us to decide is regarding the show cause notice issued by the respondents which is impugned in this petition. So far annexure VI, the impugned notice, is concerned, admittedly it shows that the reference to enquiry and reply by the concerned respondent-authority in the proceeding under section 22 initiated by the petitioner for refund of the amount has been made and apart from challenging the illegal grant earlier of the total exemption in the last para of the said notice it is specifically mentioned that on receipt of the reply the said application for refund would be decided accordingly. This clearly shows that the show cause notice is only confined to the disposal of the refund application of the petitioner. The law is absolutely clear. After any assessment order is passed by the assessing authority the amount mentioned therein is the amount on the basis of which the recovery could be made or in case any excess amount is deposited, the refund could be claimed. If the case of refund has to be refused it has to based on the assessment order or by an order if it is rectified, or modified in a proceeding under section 21 or 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. It is not the case of the respondent that the said assessment order has been modified in any of those proceedings. In fact, the said assessment order is the final order and in refund proceedings it would not be appropriate for the assessing authority to examine and decide whether the exemption granted by it was final or not. On behalf of the respondents reliance has been placed on annexure IV which is dated March 7, 1990, that in fact this is initiation of proceeding under section 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act which is independent of the proceedings for refund of the amount by the petitioner. In the present case we are not adjudicating anything in this writ petition pertaining to the notice dated March 7, 1990. However, the respondent-authority in case has modified or rectified the assessment order in those proceedings, then it can always act on the basis of that order. Till that period any enquiry in the proceeding under section 22 of the Act, initiated by the petitioner, for the refund of the amount deposited in excess could not be held. On behalf of the petitioner it has been urged that even annexure IV is actually the initiation of proceeding with reference to the application made by the petitioner. It is true that the opening sentence referred to that but that would not make any difference for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under section 22 of the said Act. The authorities, may on the basis of the record in any proceedings come to the conclusion for initiating the proceedings under section 22 and whether annexure IV is such, we are not going to adjudicate the same in this petition. But as we have observed above, we dispose of this petition only pertaining to the impugned notice, annexure VI to the petition. It is very significant in this case that annexure IV is dated March 7, 1990, while the impugned show cause notice is dated June 27, 1990, which is much later than the earlier notice. In view of this we only direct the respondent-authority not to further proceed with the enquiry pertaining to the petitioner in a proceeding in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice whether exemption was rightly or wrongly granted by the assessing authority but to keep these proceedings in abeyance until further final disposal of the proceedings, if any undertaken under section 22 of the said Act and then pass final order in the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is disposed of finally. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. .;